SCHOONEJONGEN: Outside spending in N.J. races sparks worry

Jul. 19, 2013

Column by

In 2011, New Jersey voters were treated to an onslaught of radio, television and direct-mail ads calling five Democratic legislators tax-and-spend, big government liberals.

By itself, that might not be surprising. Republicans call Democrats liberals; Democrats call Republicans right-wingers — pretty standard fare for political dialogue these days. But what made those ads unusual was their source: Americans for Prosperity, a national conservative group, spent an estimated $500,000 in the state’s legislative elections that year.

The AFP spending represents the beginning of a trend in which independent spending in state elections will become a potent factor, according to a white paper released by the state Election Law Enforcement Commission last week.

While Americans for Prosperity was a big spender, accounting for a little more than 27 percent of the total of independent money in 2011, the group wasn’t the only one opening its wallet, according to the ELEC report. Better Education for NJ Kids Inc., a group founded by two hedge-fund managers (one, a Democrat; the other, a Republican) spent almost as much, $483,138. And the ubiquitous New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, spent $414,259.

The NJEA amount was also augmented by more than $800,000 in direct contributions to legislative candidates of both parties.

Although the independent money amounted to only 4 percent of the more than $45 million, ELEC is sounding the alarm. We will only see more spending of its type, the commission says.

To back this up, ELEC presented a chart that showed independent spending as a minuscule portion of total spending (less than 1 percent) during every election cycle since 2003. In 2001, before the McCain/Feingold law banned unlimited soft money contributions to national parties, almost 9 percent of the money spent in New Jersey legislative campaigns was independent.

What changed since the 2002 ban? The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, which knocked down a ban on unlimited independent spending by unions and businesses, ELEC said.

(Page 2 of 2)

Still, 4 percent isn’t a very big slice of the pie. But in a small sample, the three special Assembly races in 2012 show what might be coming. More than 28 percent of the $758,612 spent on those races came from independent groups. And in the first half of 2013, independent organizations have already raised as much money as they spent in all of 2011.

“These trends make it clear that more disclosure is necessary for these groups to inform the electorate,” the ELEC report reads.

In an interesting twist, ELEC uses that same Citizens United court ruling as part of its justification for increased scrutiny of independent spending. That decision, ELEC reports, “contains one of the broadest mandates ever for campaign finance disclosure.

“While the U.S. Supreme Court declared that corporations and unions can raise and spend freely if they do so independently, eight of nine justices also said the voting public is entitled to know who is supplying the funds and doing the spending.”

To that end, ELEC Executive Director Jeff Brindle has proposed that independent spending be scrutinized in the same way political candidates, parties and committees are. In addition, Brindle wants the Legislature to establish oversight of those who put out so-called issue ads, in which an organization either slams or praises a candidate without explicitly calling for voters to cast ballots for or against.

The commission may be aided this year by the gubernatorial election, which is bound to feature a ton of outside spending in efforts both to promote Republican Gov. Chris Christie in his re-election bid and take him down a couple of pegs before he can mount a presidential bid in 2016. The U.S. Senate election in October will only add to the amount of money spent on campaigning in New Jersey.

It’s a given that voters will tire of an endless litany of television and radio ads, a good number of which will be paid for groups other than the candidates’ campaigns.

That voter weariness may be the most significant help in any call for reform.